Appeal 2007-1569
Application 10/089,083
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730
F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner applied Nakamura and Wiser to each element of the
claim (Answer, pages 4 to 5) and established a prima facie case for the claim
being obvious over the cited art.
To this rejection, the Appellants raised three objections: First,
“Nakamura … fails to teach or suggest that content is transmitted from the
client (101) to the server (120) and broadcasted by the content distribution
server, as recited in independent Claim 1.” (Brief, page 7, Reply brief, page
4).
The claim requires “transmitting content from the user terminal
apparatus to the distribution server.” Content is defined in the Specification
on pages 14 to 15: “…the user of the user PC 106 sends content data (e.g.,
video data, etc. taken from music live) taken by a digital camera, etc. to the
streaming server 102….” In Nakamura, and also in Wiser, we find that the
content does not travel in that claimed direction from the first user’s
terminal. Control data does, but the content data in Nakamura comes from
the server down to the user. We thus agree with the Appellants that this
teaching is not shown in the prior art.
Appellants’ second objection is that the claim requires that the content
be sent “from the user terminal apparatus to a distribution server via a
second network” to be later broadcast over the first network. (Brief, page 8
middle). Though Nakamura appears to have one network #130 in Figure 1,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013